nationfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Liberalism in Lovia
This page was really needed. --Semyon 12:06, November 20, 2010 (UTC) Title change I think that because this page is about liberalism in Lovia, that we should rename the page something like "Lovian liberalism" or "Liberalism in Lovia" (though I prefer the former), that it comes across as the Lovian interpretation of liberalism, which is what this article is about. Similarly, we should create a "Lovian conservatism" and pages for other political ideologies, what they mean in Lovia and their part in national history. What do you think? — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • ) 14:17, August 11, 2012 (UTC) :Actually, I don't think we should do this anymore. Too many pages on the wiki are have very broad names already. — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • ) 14:48, August 11, 2012 (UTC) ::No, this is a good idea. We can't have a page called Liberal, because the article that would be called "Leftist" is called Leftism in Lovia. The most generic pages that could go for any country should be tagged with an "in Lovia" or "of Lovia". —TimeMaster (talk • ) 15:07, August 11, 2012 (UTC) :::Alright, I just updated some stuff about politics. The LU no longer exists, and Walden has been marginalized, so it was very out of date. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 15:21, August 11, 2012 (UTC) ::::It turns out I was throwing the term progressive around without much knowing that it was synonymous with modern liberalism. Positive Lovia is classical liberal, actually. Its main difference from the LDP is that it feels social justice should remain outside of a limited government's grasp. Outside of that, we share similar views. — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • ) 16:09, August 11, 2012 (UTC) If you think social justice should remain outside of a limited government's grasp, then I'd advise removing social liberalism from your platform as well, because they are essentially the same. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 01:12, August 12, 2012 (UTC) Oh, nevermind. When I saw the page earlier today, it was still there, but it seems to have been removed since then. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 01:25, August 12, 2012 (UTC) ::Yep I know to avoid the word social. Thanks for the heads up though. — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • ) 02:50, August 12, 2012 (UTC) Let's update this now to include the Social Liberal Party. — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • ) 13:30, October 27, 2012 (UTC) Actually, all these centrist parties are not liberal. They're really just "centrists". Centrism and classical liberalism are incompatible. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:41, October 27, 2012 (UTC) : Yes, true that. I do hope you're not refering to my party as a centrist one though :L lord knows we're not centrist :L Hoffmann KunarianTALK 20:46, October 27, 2012 (UTC) :I don't feel that centrist and classical liberalism are incompatible. Why do you say that? — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • ) 20:50, October 27, 2012 (UTC) No, I would consider CNP to be a classical liberal party, Kunarian. The two ideas are incompatible because one of classical liberalism's bases is economic rightism. Economic centrism is not that. It is just as far from rightism as it is from leftism. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:54, October 27, 2012 (UTC) :I see what you are saying and I am going to look into it. I don't really even support the ideals of centrism, I just figured that because -5 + 5 = 0, that I could be considered centrist. On a separate note, I think that the CNP is progressive, though, aren't they? — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • ) 20:57, October 27, 2012 (UTC) ::Technically yes, but I hate that word, it's used so much by leftist parties that support PC and discrimination (if you're the right sex/race of course). I prefer to be considered a Libertarian on social matters, you get on with your life, have your own opinions and don't violate other peoples rights and the government won't bother you. :) Hoffmann KunarianTALK 21:02, October 27, 2012 (UTC) :::I think that here progressive means being pro-choice on abortion and pro-LGBT rights/marriage, etc, but it's commonly affiliated with leftism, even though many rightists and centrists are progressive too. Conservative would mean pro-life on abortion, etc. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 21:16, October 27, 2012 (UTC) ::::Thats the problem with these things, we all have differing opinions on what they even mean in the Lovian political system. My view of the perfect government is one that offers the most freedoms possible while also protecting the people. Progressivism, to me, is wether or not the government is deluded enough to infringe on the civil liberty to have personal opinions and/or biases, and to make racism, for instance, its own type of crime. In other words, I feel that a hate crime is no more serious than a regular crime of the same nature; and that if an individual has a bias against another individual, it isn't going to be serious enough to substantially effect equal opportunity in today's society, so we really have nothing to worry about. I say I'm libertarian socially and I really, actually mean it that way, and honestly, that is the only real difference between PL and the CNP. — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • ) 21:49, October 27, 2012 (UTC) :::::I'll just adress two points. Personally I believe you can't protect the people and give them freedom, you need to find a personal balance between people handling their own freedom and the government handling it. And I mean I'm libertarian socially when I say it so what do you mean the real difference between PL and the CNP is that? Hoffmann KunarianTALK 21:54, October 27, 2012 (UTC) ::::::I'd like to point out that 'progressivism is whether or not the government is deluded enough to infringe on the civil liberty to have personal opinions and/or biases.' is a very poor definition of progressivism. I'm not a progressive myself, even in real life, in fact, far from it, but even without the word 'deluded' it's pretty awful. --Semyon 22:06, October 27, 2012 (UTC) :::::::Interesting this topic should be mentioned. :P Last night I was dragged along to a meeting of the Conservative society at my university - in fact, a debate on whether 'THBT all recreational drugs should be legalised.' I wasn't particularly impressed that so many 'conservatives' supported the motion (which included heroin and crack, btw). One argument which was repeated quite a lot was 'what right does the government have to tell people what to and not to put into their bodies?' Well, every right, actually, they're the government... sorry, I don't like libertarianism very much. :P --Semyon 22:12, October 27, 2012 (UTC) ::::::::I didn't mean it offensively, Kunarian, but you did say that you were technically social. Libertarianism and pro-social is contradictory, cause on one hand you have the most freedoms possible, and on the other, you have the government trying to place restrictions that it can't possibly enforce and are only arguably in everyone's best interests. I mean it as in that it is the one point we don't see eye to eye on. Semyon, I probably shouldn't have used the word "deluded", but it got my point across well, because even if they had the right to place such restrictions, they couldn't possibly enforce them and would probably bring rise to a whole myriad of new problems. I'm against authoritarianism, so I don't feel that the government has the right to place restrictions on anything that is not vital to protecting the people. I wouldn't doubt that the only reason your peers might have been pro-recreational drugs is because they are college students and they have probably illegally used them at some point or another. I am against most serious drugs, particularly those that have a high risk of causing deaths, which is understandable and I think that we can both agree with. My point is that all people have civil rights, that it isn't even possible for an individual to infringe on another person's rights verbally, that the government should be small and focus on enforcing the important things that protect people, and that people have the right to question their government. :) — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • ) 22:32, October 27, 2012 (UTC) I hate colons. Anyway, the government can enforce the restrictions. It's been done many times before. The PL platform is social by your definition anyway, just look at "Monopolization restrictions should be placed on branches of multinational corporations operating within Lovia" in the platform. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 22:36, October 27, 2012 (UTC) : When things get super tightly packed, I hate colons too. And on the description of me being social, where is this, I don't believe I said that. And when I say socially Libertarian I mean: My social policy is Libertarian. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 22:46, October 27, 2012 (UTC) ::Nothing wrong with colons, as long as indents are reset periodically. Not having them leads to worse problems, like on my talk page atm. --Semyon 22:51, October 27, 2012 (UTC) :::Sorry Kunarian, I meant how you are technically progressive, not social. That was a fun word game. Sorry, Time, that was left over from my old plan, but don't get me wrong I am opposed to monopolies. The government should have the right to place some restrictions on companies, and instead of allowing one company to monopolize, should handle the service, such as public transportation, themselves. I'm not completely laissez-faire, but things that can potentially cause health risks or unbalance the economic system should be monitored by the government. :P — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • ) 22:59, October 27, 2012 (UTC) ::::Well to have a truly Libertarian social policy you must be technically progressive. Libertarianism advocates that you either give the states the right to choose on abortion or say gay marriage or you make them legal from the top down (however I don't see how it's very Libertarian to do it from the top down so I want states to decide). By the way, by establishing a market that lowers the cost of starting a business, gives no advantage to those currently in the market and gives few restrictions on who can operate in the market (or put simply a Laissez-faire system) you create a system where monopolies cannot survive, of course government should help establish this market if necessary. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 23:07, October 27, 2012 (UTC) ::Oh and Semyon coming back to your experience at that Conservative Society, they are mad if they think herion and crack should be legalised and aren't in anyway Libertarian nor Conservative but simply complete numbskulls. And on the argument they brought up agian and agian, it's sad to see an argument so badly used. As a Libertarian who believes in common sense policy, I believe that the government should regulate smokes and alcohol however it's a bit far to say legalise cannibis even for me and that's not because I'm conservative but because the arguments are so equal in size and they both like to ignore the negatives of their arguments. Personally I'm all for medical marijuana (short term use, no long term effects) however full legalisation... I'd need to have a really detailed and unbiased investigation done into whether it should be legalised and the implications of legalisation before I could agree on anything. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 23:16, October 27, 2012 (UTC) :::I was surprised, to be honest. Obviously students are likely to be more progressive on this subject (I had already considered Pikapi's point :P) but I would've thought the natural conservative position would have been anti-legalisation. --Semyon 23:12, October 27, 2012 (UTC) ::::In Britain you'll find more and more that if someone says they are Conservative, Socialist or Liberal, that generally only relates to their economic stance and gives clues to their social stance. However yes, definitely a suprise from so called conservatives. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 23:19, October 27, 2012 (UTC) When it comes to my beliefs on drugs, I believe that government is there to allow you to enjoy your life in the way you choose and to protect society and individuals from the choices that are not justifiable in any way, it should not be there to persue the elimination however of everyday drugs, that is a decision to be made by the opinion of the people and as we can see it's already destroying the market for tabacco and personally I think we'll definitely see a drop in usage of all drugs in the future however we should not as a government aim to eliminate usage. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 23:16, October 27, 2012 (UTC) Are the two blocks of text above by the same person? They're both unsigned. 77topaz (talk) 23:10, October 27, 2012 (UTC) :I dunno. --Semyon 23:12, October 27, 2012 (UTC) Progressivism Should we define this simply as support for social liberties, or keep its connection to leftism? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 01:37, November 29, 2012 (UTC)